A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™

Kate McCann's lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu: ''If you were Portuguese this would be enough to put you in prison''

@Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'

A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

They've vowed not to return unless Madeleine's DNA is discovered. Will be interesting if Gerry does appear to read a statement. He can't ever be sure now that whatever he states won't come back to slap him in the face at some point.

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.

Why is that Montclair? Is this that statement he showed up for a while ago, with much fanfare, but he was send back? Or is this a statement about Madeleine's being a ward of the court?

____________________"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?" Gerry

@Cristobell wrote:In the event of the McCanns losing the libel case...do you know whether the McCanns and their children [would] be liable for costs Tony? I am not sure how it works in Portugal, or if the children, as minors, can have costs awarded against them?

REPLY: Under British law, the invariable rule is: 'Costs follow the event', or, in plain language, the loser pays the winner's costs. There are some exceptions to this, and the costs must be assessed as reasonable. The two children could NEVER be made to pay for the parents taking and losing a case; it would be only the McCanns who would have to pay any costs.

I assume that is even so when they would back out now, if that is even possible?

That's the only negative side of this ruling that they can say: we were wrongly informed about this (hey why not hang Isabel) so can we just say "sorry" and walk away?

____________________"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?" Gerry

Madeleine McCann's parents today withdrew their high court request for British police to release documents about the investigation into her disappearance.

The legal challenge was withdrawn after a hearing in which Leicestershire police said they would share 81 pieces of information with Kate and Gerry McCann relating to calls received from the public shortly after Madeleine disappeared on May 3 last year.

The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, described the decision by Leicestershire police to pass the information to Madeleine's parents as "very good news for the investigation". "Each of these is important information. We have potentially 81 new leads," he said.

Mitchell did not give details about the information being released, but said he hoped more would be forthcoming.

"The critical thing is that this is early information and potentially strong information," he said.

During today's hearing, the presiding judge made an usual appeal for the child's abductor to come forward. Mrs Justice Hogg said she believed "at least one person knows what has happened to Madeleine" and urged that person to contact the police.

"I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom she no doubt misses and grieves for," she said.

"I entreat that person, whoever and wherever you may be, to show mercy and compassion and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found."

Hogg praised the police in the UK, Portugal and elsewhere for their efforts in trying to find Madeleine and added that she would remain a ward of court until a further order.

The McCanns, both 40, were not at the hearing. Mitchell thanked Hogg on their behalf for pointing out that there was no evidence that Madeleine had been harmed or was dead. He said 11,000 pieces of information were being held as part of the investigation and just one could provide the clue to her whereabouts.

Madeleine, then three, vanished from the family's holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz while her parents were having dinner in a restaurant nearby. Last week it emerged that Portuguese police had handed their file to prosecutors recommending that the case against the McCanns be dropped due to lack of evidence.

@ultimaThule wrote:In English law 'The dead have no rights and can suffer no wrongs' therefore, should Madeleine McCann be found to be or be declared dead, her estate cannot be party to the libel trial, lj.

Thank for that UT. That might become an issue than too!

____________________"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?" Gerry

@ultimaThule wrote:I think I'm right in saying that the McCanns' application to have Madeleine warded in May 2007 was not given any publicity PeterM and that the fact that she had been made a Ward of Court only come to public attention cJuly 2008 when the McCanns' attempt to abuse extend certain provisions inherent in Wardship resulted in their having to back down in the face of the refusal of Leicestershire Police to give them copies of all of the documents/information which they held in respect of the case.

Imo it's also right to say that while the fact Madeleine McCann is a Ward of Court should not have escaped the attention of 'everyone in the Western world with half a brain cell and an interest in' her fate, few have any comprehension of what this means either in law or in everyday terms as evidenced by the profusion of erroneous assumptions on the libel trial postponed thread.

While this may be seen as a lamentable failure on the part of certain English-speaking UK residents to exercise what brain cells they may possess, such ignorance is understandable for those inhabitants of countries which do not have either the concept or the fact of Wardship as part of their family law proceedings and it seems to me that this goes to the heart of another matter which is: was Isabel Duarte made aware that Madeleine is a Ward of Court when she advised the McCanns and nstituted proceeding against Dr Amaral and his co-defendants and, if so, was she also made aware that it is necessary for prior consent to be obtained from the High Court before any legal proceedings can be instituted on behalf of Madeleine McCann?

Actually that is not quite correct. From the Judgement of Mrs Justice Hogg in July 2008 it would appear that the McCanns did not seek wardship in 2007. Back in May 2007 they sought various court orders but the Wardship only came about in April 2008.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards. On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

So that Mr & Mrs could use it to their advantage and did so by obtaining files held by the Leicestershire police. Justice Hogg ruled against Leicestershire police, and granted Mr & Mrs be given access to a number of police files...all for Maddie's benefit!

I don't believe they were given all of the files or anything significant. Didn't Kate complain the information they were allowed was already in their possession from the PJ files.

Yeah, I believe they just got the list of names that had contacted them through website or phone. Good for the Leicester police. While their role not always was very honest or proffessional this they did at least try and also launched the great line:

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

Mrs Justice Hogg most emphatically did NOT "rule against Leicestershire Police" in this matter. What took place is that the McCanns withdrew their demand for some 11,000 files/documents/paperwork held by LP and settled for disclosure of 81 items "which included trivial details that our family had passed on to the police in the first place"*,

Kate just couldn't understand how the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire could make the statement bolded in lj's post (above) after "he had come out to Portugal shortly after Madeleine's abduction and had seen us at our most grief stricken"**. How about he took one look at the pair of you and came to same conclusion many on this forum had already reached, Kate, and of course there's always Eddie & Keela's fine noses to rely on when it comes to scenting out a crime scene

@russiandoll wrote:Oh don't tell me, the Mcs will say it was ID who should have done her research and ensured the correct procedures re Maddie's wardship were followed, and then they will sue their own lawyer !

If ID was made aware that Madeleine is a Ward of Court at the time she advised the McCanns, it would have been remiss of her not to have taken into account all possible implications this could have on the proceedings including their legality, rd

If ID became aware of the Wardship subsequent to having instituted proceedings on behalf of her clients, it seems to me that she was duty bound to inform the Court in order that the enquiries which it has been necessary for Dr Amaral to undertake were more properly undertaken by herself/her clients or by the Court at the direction of the judge..

Yes, UT. I asked a little way back in the thread why ID had allowed this to happen, she should have known the procedures!

btw considering the implications and the gravity of Madeleine being made a ward of court, surely the parents would have been given some sort of official document with information about all the rights and responsibilities . This information must have been available to the Mcs and any lawyers who would be acting for them in a case where Madeleine would be named? I can't believe that the court makes a child a ward and does not give chapter and verse to the parents about policy and procedures.

____________________

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.~John F. Kennedy

@noddy100 wrote:Once made a Ward of Court can it subsequently be undone? And what would this involve? And why haven't they done that I wonder?

ANS: Yes, a Wardship Order can be undone. It is usually brought to an end when its purpsoe has been achieved.

As I think the main reasons the McCanns sought to make Madeleine a Ward of Court were (a) to prevent damaging press stories from harming the search for Madeleine and (b) to obtain information from the police or other sources to help them in their search for Madeleine, they would presumably argue that the Order is still needed.

If it were proved that Madeleine were dead, the order would lapse.

If it were ever proved that the McCanns knew that Madeleine was dead prior to applying for the Wardship Order, they would probably face a charge of 'perverting the course of justice'

____________________

Daily Mail journalist Daniel Bates wrote: “Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box. She has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow. It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished”

Yes, UT. I asked a little way back in the thread why ID had allowed this to happen, she should have known the procedures!

I suspect everybody knew but hoped that the case would be settled out of court same as all the others. So a calculated gamble to keep Maddie on the claim so that it looked more intimidating. Without her it would also have looked like a very selfish, money-grabbing act by the parents. No ability to claim it was all done for poor Madeleine... And arrogant enough to believe that GA's Portuguese lawyers were also 'f...ing tossers' and wouldn't even realise about the WOC thing.

@canada12 wrote: Seems to me what the judge is saying is that Gerry and Kate didn't have authorization to bring this action on Madeleine's behalf. She wants to see the authorization from the British court which would have allowed them to bring the action on Madeleine's behalf. If there was no authorization, then GA will be acquitted of the part of the court case that has to do with Madeleine. I don't think the judge is saying that Gerry and Kate can get the authorization after the fact. I think the judge is demanding to see proof that the court authorized them to take action on Madeleine's behalf when they started this libel action.

I agree. However, this is about the parents v Amaral and others, and as far as this part of the case is concerned, Amaral has been vindicated in asking for the wardship issue to be clarified.

I really hope so. I wonder if it was a flash of inspiration or if his team had it up their sleeves from a long way out?

Very, very risky to bring it up so late: 'normally' (but, what is normal in this case but for the judges being outstanding so far, both Judge T and Dona Melo y Castro) it would have to have been brought right at the outset, before all other defenses in order to enable the judge to get a clear view of who's who in the proceedings

In general, a guardian does not have the authority to make contracts for the ward without specific permission from the court. If the child is party to a lawsuit, a guardian cannot assent to a settlement without first submitting the terms to the court for approval. A guardian must deposit any money held for the ward into an interest-bearing bank account separate from the guardian's own money. A guardian is also prohibited from making gifts from the ward's estate

@russiandoll wrote:Why did ID not produce the relevant /required documentation when Amaral raised this issue with the court?

There is a lively debate on twitter now about whether that judgment implies that the PT court will allow this authorisation in retrospect.. my reading of it is NO... the judge wants to see if UK authorisation was in existence when the case was brought to court, if not...

The judge might throw the entire case out as vexatious for timewasting and the Mcs not going through the necessary process. Why has ID allowed them to do this ?

It's similar to the following situation: if the Court now assumes she is likely dead, she may allow the parents to show otherwise AT THE START of the litigation. If she was dead then: they fail. If she was alive then, they are in a position to continue the litigation. (simplified)

@russiandoll wrote:In general, a guardian does not have the authority to make contracts for the ward without specific permission from the court. If the child is party to a lawsuit, a guardian cannot assent to a settlement without first submitting the terms to the court for approval. A guardian must deposit any money held for the ward into an interest-bearing bank account separate from the guardian's own money. A guardian is also prohibited from making gifts from the ward's estate

The court's wardship jurisdiction is part of and not separate from the court's inherent jurisdiction. The distinguishing characteristics of wardship are that –

(a) custody of a child who is a ward is vested in the court; and(b) although day to day care and control of the ward is given to an individual or to a local authority, no important step can be taken in the child's life without the court's consent.[/b]

And

2.3

The following proceedings in relation to a ward of court will be dealt with in the High Court unless the nature of the issues of fact or law makes them more suitable for hearing in the family court –

(f) those in which there is a substantial foreign element;

____________________

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.~John F. Kennedy

Yes, UT. I asked a little way back in the thread why ID had allowed this to happen, she should have known the procedures!

I suspect everybody knew but hoped that the case would be settled out of court same as all the others. So a calculated gamble to keep Maddie on the claim so that it looked more intimidating. Without her it would also have looked like a very selfish, money-grabbing act by the parents. No ability to claim it was all done for poor Madeleine... And arrogant enough to believe that GA's Portuguese lawyers were also 'f...ing tossers' and wouldn't even realise about the WOC thing.

Well who's looking like a FT now?!

It seems to me you may not be far off the mark, Bishop, as lawyers can only advise on what their clients tell them and it may be that the McCanns did not inform ID that Madeleine is a Ward of Court.

As it's my understanding that her field of expertise is Portuguese libel law, I would not expect ID to be an expert in family law or, more particularly, to be au fait with UK Wardship proceedings and the necessity of obtaining the consent of the High Court before any important step, such as making her party to libel proceedings, can be taken in the Ward's life (for the purpose of this exercise we will overlook the probability that the Ward is deceased).

However, if ID was informed that Madeleine is Ward of Court, and if she was unaware of how this fact might impact on the McCanns claim, she should have done her homework before instituting any proceedings on their behalf.

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter 6:27PM BST 20 Jun 2008The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal dispute such as the case which is about to be heard.So she was made a ward in 2007

[color:c514=000000]During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.The McCanns were declared arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008

They must have known way before they were arrested that they were going to be made arguidos

@Watching wrote:'Nevertheless, the judge has decided that the final court session, which will include a statement from Gerald McCann and the presentation of closing arguments from all sides, should take place regardless of the matter of the Wardship.'

A written statement to be read out in Court or is Mr going to make an appearance?

They've vowed not to return unless Madeleine's DNA is discovered. Will be interesting if Gerry does appear to read a statement. He can't ever be sure now that whatever he states won't come back to slap him in the face at some point.

Gerry McCann must appear in person and the statement must be as spontaneous as possible.

Is that as in, not a read-out statement, Montclair?

That is correct. Gerry cannot read out a written statement. It must come from the heart, which will be very difficult considering that Gerry does not have one.

I've found a clip of Gerry discussing how difficult it will be for him to make a statement in court:

This has been stuck in my head since I read Montclair's post so I thought I'd share the joy!

@Markus 2 wrote:By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter 6:27PM BST 20 Jun 2008The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal disputesuch as the case which is about to be heard.So she was made a ward in 2007

[color:90d3=000000]During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.

How ironic that the stated reason for making Madeleine a woc is the very one that has tripped them up at the libel trial.

@noddy100 wrote:Once made a war of court can Ut subsequently be undone?And what would this involve?And why haven't they done that I wonder

In the normal course of events a Wardship is discharged on the date that the minor attains the age of majority, noddy. Although there is no bar to application being made to discharge it earlier, there's no guarantee that the Court will agree.

In the abnormal world of Mcevents and having gained certain advantages from provisions inherent in Wardship, there is nothing for them to gain from applying for it to be discharged at this point in time.

@Markus 2 wrote:By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter 6:27PM BST 20 Jun 2008The Telegraph can also disclose that Madeleine was made a ward of court last summer at the request of the McCanns, to empower judges to act in her best interests in any legal disputesuch as the case which is about to be heard.So she was made a ward in 2007

[color:d429=000000]During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.

How ironic that the stated reason for making Madeleine a woc is the very one that has tripped them up at the libel trial.

During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.The McCanns were declared arguidos (suspects) in September 2007, but were cleared in July 2008

They must have known way before they were arrested that they were going to be made arguidos

@russiandoll wrote:In general, a guardian does not have the authority to make contracts for the ward without specific permission from the court. If the child is party to a lawsuit, a guardian cannot assent to a settlement without first submitting the terms to the court for approval. A guardian must deposit any money held for the ward into an interest-bearing bank account separate from the guardian's own money. A guardian is also prohibited from making gifts from the ward's estate

That would seem to be U.S law, rd, as in the UK it is customary for any financial award made to a minor by way of compensation for criminal or other injury to be invested by the court in which the claim has been made until the child comes of age although, in certain circumstances, the court may authorise the release of some or all of the monies for any necessary adaptation of the child's home, education, or similar before the minor attains the age of majority.

This, of course, begs the question of which court in which country will hold any monies awarded to Madeleine McCann by a Portuguese court and who is looking out for the financial interests of the twins?

@ultimaThule wrote:This, of course, begs the question of which court in which country will hold any monies awarded to Madeleine McCann by a Portuguese court and who is looking out for the financial interests of the twins?

I think the legal position is as set out by Mitchell some time ago. The money will be held in a brown envelope addressed to McCanns, Rothley, and will be dealt with in accordance with other monies received.

Blood and cadaver alerts in the McCanns apartment & hire car are ignored by UK Government & Police as they continue to spend millions of pounds investigating the non-existent abduction.

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere show off. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."

Ex-Met DCI Colin Sutton, who had been to Praia da Luz several times for various newspapers: "The most likely hypothesis is that Madeleine was stolen to order by slave traders or people traffickers and smuggled into Africa for a rich family who wanted a white child. She would have taken her beloved toy 'cuddlecat' if she had wandered out of the apartment."

Ex-MET DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window of opportunity', in accordance with their remit, to allow the fake abduction to happen.

Professor Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY News reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after she was singled out from a Dossier handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room. Brenda paid the price.